# atomic structure stability, and the origin of elementary particles mass

Elementary gravity, in other words, simply means quantum gravity. However, I need to make a small distinction between **quantum gravity as the whole phenomenon**, and elementary gravity as specifically pertaining to gravity generated by stand-alone elementary particles.

In general, for quantum gravity, or quantum antigravity, to be generated naturally, or artificially, we need the following 3 components properly combined, oriented, and tuned:

- electric field ;
- magnetic field ;
- angular momentum (spin).

The above conditions perfectly obtain in the case of atoms, specifically because what is crucial is that we need an “asymmetric capacitor” configuration, i.e. an inhomogeneous charge density distribution (and electric dipole moment).

### Would gravity be also generated by stand-alone elementary particles?

If we take a look at the above schematics of an electron it is clear that the above principle seems to apply. However, electron seems to be an electric **mono**pole. Nevertheless, electron may also have its electric **dipole** moment:

Because it seems that electron’s electric dipole moment may not be a permanent property, let’s assume electron to be strictly an electric **mono**pole.

If we take a conceptual “look” at a hydrogen **atom** from outside, all we will “see” is a “cloud” of one electron. **Metaphorically,** if we take a conceptual “look” at a single **electron** from outside, all we will “see” is a smaller “cloud” of one electron, **too.**

### For the sake of argument, let’s assume that because electron has a negative charge, angular momentum (spin) and magnetic moment, it generates gravity.

Specifically, it generates **attractive** gravity, because its outer “shell” is negatively charged, like in the case of atoms of matter. Of course, being a monopole, it does not have any inner positively charged “shell” or “electrode”, but effectively, from outside, it looks like an electron “cloud” of a hydrogen atom, especially considering that it might have its electric dipole moment anyway.

By analogy, a **proton** would also generate gravity, albeit the **repulsive** one (antigravity), in virtue of having its mono-“outer” shell charged positively.

And **antiproton** would generate **attractive** gravity. That explains the results of gravity-antiproton experiments at CERN. The expectation was that antiproton would antigravitate. And it did not, exactly as per my hypothesis. I imagine that on the assumption that protons would naturally gravitate, like regular matter, there was no experiments to verify it.

### According to my hypothesis, as opposed to antiprotons, **protons would actually antigravitate. **That is another testable prediction of my hypothesis that can be experimentally verified.

All that may seem like a surprise at first, because atoms of matter generate only attractive gravity, and anti-atoms of anti-matter generate only repulsive gravity. But if I am correct, this surprise would perfectly explain the **stability** of the atomic structure by explaining the nature of the strong nuclear force, and the origin of elementary particles mass.

If an electron can generate gravity, then it is said to have “gravitational mass”, and from this we would conclude the existence of its inertial mass.

### What if gravity does not originate from inertial mass? What if there is no inertial mass at all? What if there is only (attractive and repulsive) gravity forces?

* ” The concept of mass, with the concept of gravitational mass identified with the concept of inertial mass, is quantified and defined by gravitational phenomenology. Therefore, on purely logical grounds, the concept of mass so defined cannot then be used in the theories of physics as an explanation of the very phenomenology used to define and quantify it.”* — W.F. Heinrich, QuantumGravity.ca

If I am correct, then in general, for the force of gravity, or antigravity, to be generated naturally, or artificially, we **only** need the following 3 components properly combined, oriented, and tuned:

- electric field ;
- magnetic field ;
- angular momentum (spin) ;

then the **effective** gravitational “mass” would simply be nothing more than a **measure of the strength** of the force of gravity, without any need to refer to purported “inertial mass” as a basic, unchanging, inherent property of matter. That would instantly eliminate the need for any extra Dark matter around galaxies. Apparently, at the present rate of angular velocity, there doesn’t seems to be enough mass in a galaxy to keep it from spiraling out of control. If I am correct, the faster a galaxy spins the stronger its angular momentum, and as a result the stronger the force of gravity that galaxy generates which keeps it together. In this way a galaxy would be a self-regulating system.

If the above seems too far out, then let’s consider particle-wave duality:

If elementary particles are said to have an inherent property of inertial mass, then what happens to this inertial mass when we consider particle as a wave? Does this localized inertial mass disappear?

Well, it becomes equivalent of waves’ energy. Then, what if “inertial mass” of a particle is always simply **energy**, precisely the energy needed to generate the force of gravity? In this case the concept of “negative mass” producing repulsive gravity would make much more sense. It is hard to imagine negative **scalar** mass, but quite easy to imagine negative gravitational “mass”, where such “mass” is essentially identical with the force (**vector**) of gravity (two semantic sides of the same coin).

In the following illustration what makes gravitational mass (force) “positive”, or “negative”, is merely orientation of **B-B vectors** that always point from negative to positive electric charge, like the **electric dipole moment:**

So, electron’s electric energy, its magnetic energy, and the energy related to its angular momentum, produce force of gravity and hence electron is said to have “gravitational mass” (two semantic sides of the same coin) that is essentially identical with the **force** of gravity. No **scalar** “inertial mass” is needed to produce gravity, which does **not** mean that there is **no inertia,** of course. For the same reason that gravity does not originate from inertial mass, the **inertia** does not stem from “inertial mass”, either.

**STABILITY DUE TO BALANCE**

It seems that the stability of atomic structure is explained much better than the dynamic stability of the Solar system.

If I am correct, the stability of atomic structure can be explained as a **balance** of electric, magnetic, gravity & antigravity forces among all elementary particles composing an atom, without resorting to the strong nuclear force, similar to the dynamic stability of the Solar system being due to the **balance** of gravity and antigravity forces of the Sun, planets, and moons.

Let’s see how it could hypothetically work.